4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Donetsk. She was a co-owner of the Yuvileynyy Trade Centre.
5.  On 9 June 1999 the Petrovskyy District Council annulled the State registration of the trade centre at its director’s request, accompanied by a decision of the assembly of owners to liquidate the trade centre.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the decision of the Petrovskyy District Council before the Petrovskyy District Court of Donetsk, alleging that the owners’ assembly was not competent to decide on the trade centre’s liquidation because it had not been quorate as, according to the applicant, only three of the sixty-six owners had taken part in the assembly. It is unknown if the applicant was among these three present.
7.  On an unspecified date the Petrovskyy Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the applicant’s case for the annulment of sale contracts (see below). The applicant did not provide any information about the progress or the outcome of these proceedings.
8.  By decisions of 25 September and 30 October 1998 and 27 February 1999, the assembly of the owners of the Yuvileynyy Trade Centre, including the applicant, decided to dispose of the property belonging to the trade centre.
9.  By a decision of 11 March 1999, the assembly of owners dismissed Mrs G. from her position as director of the trade centre.
10.  On 19 March and 14 April 1999 respectively Mrs G., acting on behalf of the trade centre, sold its property to a private company, V., and a private person, Mr M.
11.  On 5 May 1999 the Petrovskyy Court annulled the decision of 11 March 1999 and reinstated Mrs G. as director of the trade centre. No appeal was lodged against that judgment and it became final.
12.  On 21 January 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Petrovskyy Court against the new owners of the property of the trade centre and Mrs G., seeking annulment of the contracts pursuant to which the property at issue had been sold. The applicant stated that Mrs G. had not been authorised to sell the property, since she had been dismissed from her position as director in March 1999. She further stated that the assembly of owners had not been competent to decide on that matter as it had not been quorate and that the decisions could not form the basis for the contracts of sale at issue because they did not contain essential terms for such contracts and did not concern all the property sold in 1999. Lastly, the applicant submitted that the price at which the property had been sold had been much lower than its market price.
13  On 23 March 2000 the applicant lodged additional claims.
15.  On 12 July 2001 the Donetsk Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
16.  On 30 May 2002 the Petrovskyy Court found against the applicant, holding that the decision of 11 March 1999 had been annulled and thus Mrs G. had had the right to sell the property of the trade centre. The court further held that the disputed contracts had been concluded in accordance with the law.
17.  On 12 August 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant as unsubstantiated.
18.  On 4 March 2004 the Supreme Court, following an appeal in cassation by the applicant, quashed the courts’ decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It held that the lower courts had failed to establish whether the decisions of the assemblies of owners of 30 October 1998 and 27 February 1999 had been adopted in accordance with the law.
19.  On 21 January 2005 the Petrovskyy Court ruled against the applicant. It held that the contracts had been concluded in accordance with the law and that according to the relevant legislation an individual was not empowered to challenge contracts concluded between legal entities. The court further found that the applicant had failed to challenge the decisions of 25 September and 30 October 1998 and 27 February 1999 in due time.
22.  On 31 May 2007, according to the legislative amendments introduced on 22 February 2007, the Supreme Court transferred the applicant’s appeal to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for consideration.
23.  On 29 August 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that it did not contain arguments capable of persuading that there had been violations of substantial or procedural law.
24.  Of about thirty-five hearings in the case eleven were adjourned due to the respondents’ failure to appear. Seven hearings scheduled between April 2000 and June 2001 were adjourned at the applicant’s or her lawyer’s request or because of their failure to appear. On several occasions the applicant’s lawyer requested the courts to expedite the proceedings.